4Summary 2012 NANPA Performance ReportNANPA’s rating for the 2012 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be Exceeded. This rating is defined below:Satisfaction RatingUsed when the NANPA...EXCEEDEDExceeded performance requirement(s)Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectationsPerformance was well above requirementsDecisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations06/20/2013

5Summary 2012 NANPA Survey RespondentsThe total number of respondents to the 2012 NANPA Survey was down from The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the NOWG performance survey:06/20/2013

6Summary 2012 NANPA Performance ReportCO (NXX) Administration (Section A)There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:65 as Exceeded53 as More than Met14 as Met2 as Sometimes MetNPA Relief Planning (Section B) 57 as Exceeded39 as More than Met21 as Met06/20/2013

7Summary 2012 NANPA Performance ReportNRUF (Section C) There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:62 as Exceeded57 as More than Met22 as Met1 as Not MetOther NANP Resources (Section D) There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:13 as Exceeded9 as More than Met8 as Met06/20/2013

8Summary 2012 NANPA Performance ReportNANP Administration System (NAS) (Section E) There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:45 as Exceeded34 as More than Met19 as MetNANPA Website, Reports, and Industry Activities (Section F) There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:61 as Exceeded53 as More than Met31 as Met1 as Sometimes Met2 as Not Met06/20/2013

9Summary 2012 NANPA Performance ReportOverall Assessment of the NANPA (Section G) There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:28 as Exceeded18 as More than Met8 as Met1 as Sometimes Met06/20/2013

10Summary 2012 NANPA Performance ReportThe following is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey respondents:Significant praise for NANPA staff was a consistent theme throughout the survey. In many cases, the comments provided praise for individual staff members. The following recurring adjectives were used by multiple respondents to describe their experiences in working with the NANPA staff:Timely, responsive, and professionalCourteous, helpful, and knowledgeableExcellent, accurate, and dedicated06/20/2013

11Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report NOWG ObservationsAll comments received from the annual survey were positive, and none suggested any areas needing improvement.After thoroughly reviewing the comments received, the NOWG concluded that the written comments indicated a very high level of satisfaction experienced by those who interacted with the NANPA.06/20/2013

12Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report NOWG ObservationsAs in previous years, the 2012 survey results continued to reveal a high level of client satisfaction with the continued perseverance, professionalism, and expertise exhibited by NANPA personnel when performing their NANPA duties. The NANPA continued to consistently and effectively demonstrate their expertise as the custodian of numbering resources in all areas in which they were involved.06/20/2013

13Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report SuggestionsThe NOWG makes the following recommendations for NANPA’s consideration:Continue to proactively search for ways to improve processes, educate customers, and enhance system functionality.Continue to develop and produce instructional and training videos, such as “How to Request a Growth Code” on the NANPA website.On semi-annual CIC report filing, send out a reminder notice similar to the NRUF reminder notice.The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.06/20/2013

15Summary 2012 PA Performance ReportThe PA’s rating for the 2012 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be Exceeded. This rating is defined below:Satisfaction RatingUsed when the PA...EXCEEDEDExceeded performance requirement(s)Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectationsPerformance was well above requirementsDecisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations06/20/2013

16Summary 2012 PA Survey RespondentsThe number of respondents to the 2012 PA Survey was up from 2011 with an increase in industry & other and the regulator respondents remained the same as in The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:06/20/2013

17Summary 2012 PA Performance Report PA SurveyPooling Administrator (Section A)There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:103 as Exceeded108 as More than Met35 as Met2 as Sometimes MetPooling Administration System (Section B) There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:88 as More than Met63 as Met1 as Sometimes Met06/20/2013

18Summary 2012 PA Performance Report PA SurveyPA Website (Section C)There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:60 as Exceeded76 as More than Met50 as Met4 as Sometimes MetMiscellaneous Pooling Administration (PA) Functions (Section D) There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:87 as Exceeded107 as More than Met90 as Met06/20/2013

19Summary 2012 PA Performance Report PA SurveyOverall Assessment of Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section E) There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:37 as Exceeded43 as More than Met16 as Met06/20/2013

20Summary 2012 PA Performance Report PA SurveyFollowing is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey respondents:Outstanding praise for the PA staff was a consistent theme throughout the survey:Provides excellent support, assistance, and technical expertiseAlways prompt, helpful, and courteousProfessional, friendly, and responsiveWilling to go the extra mile to provide top notch service to their customers.06/20/2013

22Summary 2012 RNA Survey Respondents2012 is the first year for the RNA Survey and the following chart represents the number of Industry & Other and Regulators that participated in this year’s survey. In subsequent years, the chart will reflect the trend of respondents with previous years.06/20/2013

23Summary 2012 PA Performance Report RNA SurveyRouting Number Administrator (Section A)There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:18 as Exceeded1 as More than Met2 as Met2 as Not MetRouting Number Administration System (RNAS) (Section B) 17 as Exceeded3 as More than Met6 as Met3 as Not Met06/20/2013

24Summary 2012 PA Performance Report RNA SurveyRNA Website (Section C)There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:8 as Exceeded7 as More than Met4 as Met1 as Not MetMiscellaneous RNA Functions (Section D) There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:14 as Exceeded2 as More than Met3 as Met3 as Not Met06/20/2013

25Summary 2012 PA Performance Report RNA SurveyOverall Assessment of the RNA (Section E) There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:7 as Exceeded2 as Met1 as Not Met06/20/2013

26Summary 2012 PA Performance Report RNA SurveyFollowing is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey respondents:Outstanding praise for the RNA staff was a consistent theme throughout the survey:Efficient, organized, and helpfulPolite and responsive.06/20/2013

28Summary 2012 PA Performance Report NOWG ObservationsThe NOWG concluded that the written comments were not indicative of any consistent performance issues for the PA and RNA, and in many cases provided significant praise for individual PA and RNA staffers.06/20/2013

29Summary 2012 PA Performance Report NOWG SuggestionsThe NOWG makes the following recommendations for the PA’s consideration:Continue to review internal training processes to ensure that consistency in understanding the processes and responding to service providers is communicated to the PA and RNA personnel.Ongoing review of the PA and RNA websites to ensure accuracy and timeliness of data.Continue to consider process or systems enhancements suggested by regulators and service providers.The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.06/20/2013

30NOWG LeadershipThe NOWG Tri-Chair position formerly held by Natalie McNamer is now vacant.The current and future workload was reviewed by the two other tri-chairs.On an interim basis, the vacant tri-chair position will not be filled.06/20/2013

32Outstanding PA Change OrdersChange Order NumberDate FiledSummaryNOWG StatusFCC ActionScheduled Implementation Date2411/6/2012Enhancement of the FTP Interface with the Pooling Administration SystemNOWG Recommendation to Approve sent to FCC on 11/16/201212/5/12End of June 2013236/1/2012INC Issue #715 - Update TBPAG for Retrieving a Block Donated/Returned in ErrorNOWG Recommendation to Approve sent to FCC on 6/12/2012FCC Approved on 8/14/2012Implemented on 4/5/1306/20/2013

35NOWG MeetingsContact the Co-Chairs for complete meeting or conference call details:Other meetings for the NOWG may be scheduled as needed beyond what has been identified in this list.NOWG meeting notes and documents are posted at06/20/2013